Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Written by
Tyler Fornes
Senior Security Analyst at Expel
Share
11
Mar 2019
The following guest-authored blog post examines an advanced cyber-threat discovered by Darktrace on a customer’s network.
At Expel — a managed security provider — our analysts get to use a lot of really cool technologies every day, including Darktrace. Given its popularity among our customers, we thought it would be useful to demonstrate how Darktrace helps us identify and triage potential security threats.
Take a look at this alert. It was triggered via a violation of one of the pre-packaged model breaches for Device / AT Service Scheduled Task.
To triage this specific alert, we need to answer the following questions:
What were the triggers that caused the model to alert?
Which host was the Scheduled Task created on?
Were any files transferred?
Is this activity commonly seen between these hosts?
By answering these questions, we can determine whether or not this alert is related to malicious activity. First, we need to gather additional evidence using the Darktrace console.
At this point, we know the model breach Device / AT Service Scheduled Task was triggered. But what does that mean? Let’s view the model and explore the logic.
Looking at the logic behind this model breach, we see that any message containing the strings “atsvc” and “IPC$” will match this model breach. And because the frequency has been set to “> 0 in 60 mins,” we can assume that once this activity is seen just one time, it’ll trigger an alert. By understanding this logic, we now know:
Next, let’s grab some data. We opened the Model Breach Event Log to see the related events observed for this model breach. There was a successful DCE-RPC bind, followed by SMB Write/Read success containing the keywords “atsvc” and “IPC$.”
We turned to the View advanced search for this event feature of the Model Breach Event Log for even more info.
The advanced search results for this model breach revealed two distinct messages. There’s a successful NTLM authentication message for the account “appadmin.” Since NTLM is commonly used with SMB for authentication, this is likely the account being used by the source machine to establish the SMB session.
Immediately after this authentication, we see the following DCE-RPC message for a named pipe being created involving atsvc:
We see that the RPC bind was created referencing the SASec interface. Based on a quick online search, we learned that the SASec interface “only includes methods for manipulating account information, because most SASec-created task configuration is stored in the file system using the .JOB file format0.”
One possible explanation for this connection is that it was made to query information about a scheduled task defined within the .JOB format, rather than a new scheduled task being created on the host. However, Darktrace doesn’t show any messages mentioning a file with the extension “.JOB” within this model breach. So we kept digging for answers.
By querying “*.JOB AND SMB” within the timeframe of the activity we’ve already observed, some promising results appeared:
We observed three unique .JOB files being accessed over SMB during the exact time of our previous observations. Considering the hosts and the timeframe, we correlated this activity to the original model breach.
So we know the following:
To answer the last investigative question, we used the query “AV.job AND SMB” over the past 60 days. This query returned daily entries for identical activity dating back several months. The activity occurred around the same time each day, involving the same hosts and file paths.
This was starting to smell like legitimate activity, but we still wanted to analyze the contents of the requested file AV.job. We created a packet capture for a five-minute window around the timeframe of the source IP address observed in the model breach.
Once we collected the PCAP, we downloaded and analyzed it in Wireshark, and then extracted the transferred files using the Export Objects feature.
The contents of this file refer to an executable in the location C:\Program Files\Sophos\Sophos Anti-Virus\BackgroundScanClient.exe. Judging by the name of the .JOB file this was found in, it was likely a legitimate scheduled task created to perform an antivirus scan on the endpoint each morning.
Reviewing our original analysis questions, we could confidently answer all four questions:
Darktrace’s cyber defense platform allowed our analysts to quickly confirm and scope potential threat activity and identify network-based indicators (NBIs) related to an attack. It can also generate additional, host-based indicators (HBIs) to supplement your investigation. In summary, Darktrace AI enables our Expel analysts quickly and efficiently scope an incident or hunt for threats across the entire organization — without the need for exhaustive data collection and offline parsing by an analyst.
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Botnet Behind the Camera: Mirai Katana Activity on a Video Recording Device
Key takeaways
Darktrace identified a camera device infected with the Mirai/Katana botnet in a sports-sector customer environment, showing how exposed IoT devices can become active participants in wider attack chains.
The compromise involved suspicious Wget behavior, file downloads from rare external IPs, unusual incoming HTTP connections to video recorder management interfaces, and large outbound data transfers to infrastructure associated with botnet activity.
The incident highlights the importance of extending visibility and response beyond traditional endpoints, as unmanaged or overlooked connected devices can be exploited for command-and-control, malware delivery, and data exfiltration.
Mirai and the Katana variant
Mirai is a botnet that first emerged in August 2016 and is well known for launching large-scale distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, typically targeting exposed Internet of Things (IoT) devices. It identifies vulnerable IoT devices ,often by abusing default credentials or exposed services, and recruiting them into a remotely controlled botnet that can be used in DDoS campaigns [1].
Katana, one of the many variants that arose after Mirai’s source code was released publicly, was first observed in late 2020 and has been seen using more advanced capabilities, including custom command-and-control (C2), persistence mechanisms, and DDoS functionality [2].
In March 2026, research from the Nokia Deepfield Emergency Response Team (ERT) identified Katana as a Mirai-derived DDoS botnet targeting Android-based TV set-top boxes through exposed Android Debug Bridge (ADB) access. Observed capabilities included custom C2, runtime domain rotation, multiple DDoS methods, and an on-device compiled kernel rootkit used for persistence and stealth [3].
Darktrace’s detection of Mirai Botnet activity on a camera device
In early 2026, Darktrace identified a Network/Digital Video Recorder (NVR/DVR) on the network of a sports-sector customer that had been infected with the Mirai Katana botnet and subsequently used to exfiltrate data from the customer’s environment. Seemingly related follow-up activity was observed on the same device several months later.
In both instances, the Darktrace Security Operations Centre (SOC) alerted the customer as part of the Managed Threat Detection (MTD) service. However, as Darktrace’s Autonomous Response capability was not fully enabled on the affected device, Darktrace was unable to proactively block the suspicious activity or prevent the compromise from continuing and recurring.
The initial compromise appears to have occurred when the affected device was seen using Wget to download Linux-based Executable and Linkable Format (ELF) files from a rare external IP, 195.177.94[.]105, which had not previously been observed in the customer’s network. Further analysis downloaded file hashes identified files related to the Mirai botnet.
Figure 1: Darktrace’s Real-Time AI Analyst investigation into the unusual outbound connection where the ELF files were downloaded.
Within a few hours, Darktrace detected the device uploading close to 3GB of data to another external IP, 50.7.49[.]4:3017 (ASN AS30058 FDCSERVERS), suggesting that the activity was likely routed via a virtual private server (VPS) hosted by FDC Servers [2]. Attackers often abuse VPS infrastructure from legitimate cloud providers to blend in with legitimate traffic and evade IP reputation and geolocation-based detections.
Figure 2: Darktrace’s detection of the unusual data upload activity by the affected camera device.
Darktrace continued to observe similar data transfers to multiple rare endpoints including 171.225.223[.]53, 95.161.128[.]62, 61.7.209[.]88, 95.161.128[.]62, which have been linked to Mirai by open-source intelligence (OSINT).
Figure 3: Darktrace’s detection of spikes in unusual external data transfer activity from the camera device.
Exploitation continued
Several months later, Darktrace identified the same exfiltration pattern on the device again, this time with stronger indications of associations with Mirai Katana botnet infection.
The device received incoming HTTP connections from 129.121.114[.]124, an external IP known to be associated with the Katana botnet IP [3]. The connections targeted the ‘/dvr/cmd’ path using the root username and user agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.246.
The ‘/dvr/cmd’ path appears to be associated with the affected device’s web management functionality. This API endpoint has historically been targeted by Mirai and other IoT botnets through the exploitation of critical command injection vulnerabilities and automated botnet exploitation [4].
Figure 4: Darktrace’s detection of HTTP connectivity from the external IP associated with Mirai Katana Botnet.
A few days later, Darktrace observed the Wget utility being used to download ELF files, including “/lil”, from the IP 129.121.114[.]124. OSINT reporting has since associated this IP address with the Mirai Katana botnet. Notably, the IP observed earlier in the year, 195.177.94[.]105, had also hosted a file named “lil”, indicating a link between the observed activity.
Over the following days, the device received a sudden spike in connections from multiple rare external endpoints, suggesting a possible successful brute force attack. Darktrace also observed the device exfiltrating just under 4GB of data to another Mirai-associated IP address, 66.92.198[.]194, over ports 3344, 954922, and 80. Finally, the device was seen uploading data to the Mirai botnet IP 5.175.249[.]53 over port138 and exhibited an increase in UDP connections to 34.18.28[.]10 over port 9068.
Following both file download events, Darktrace identified spikes in external data transfers and connection attempts to rare destinations. While Darktrace’s Threat Research team could not confirm with high confidence that this to activity was directly associated with Mirai, it may indicate that Mirai Katana includes data exfiltration functionality.
Darktrace’s threat researchers also identified an internet-facing NTP server belonging to a separate customer receiving incoming connection attempts from the same initially observed IP, 195.177.94[.]105,over the port 123. This suggests that Mirai Katana may not exclusively target IoT devices.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates how threat actors can exploit overlooked IoT and OT devices to support broader malicious objectives. Here, a camera device infected with a botnet was used to exfiltrate data from the customer's environment, showing how peripheral assets can become active participants in an attack chain.
This case also reinforces a challenge many organizations face today: extending security visibility beyond traditional endpoints and servers. Cameras, sensors, and other connected devices often operate with limited monitoring and may fall outside established security processes, despite maintaining network connectivity and access to potentially sensitive environments. This is particularly relevant in the sports sector, where growing reliance on connected cameras, smart stadium technologies, and other IoT devices continues to expand the attack surface, as highlighted in Darktrace's Sports Sector Threat Report.
As botnets like Kata and Mirai continue to evolve, defenders need visibility across unmanaged IoT and edge devices, as well as security solutions that can recognize subtle deviations in device behavior that may indicate an emerging compromise.
Credit to Parvatha Ananthakannan (Cyber Analyst), Signe Zaharka (Principal Analyst)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)
Appendices
Darktrace Model Detections
· Anomalous File / EXE from Rare External Location
· Anomalous File / Multiple EXE from Rare External Locations
· Device / Initial Attack Chain Activity
· Unusual Activity / Unusual External Data to New Endpoint
· Anomalous Connection / Data Sent to Rare Domain
· Unusual Activity / Enhanced Unusual External Data Transfer
· Anomalous Connection / Uncommon 1 GiB Outbound
· Device / Significant UDP Increase
· Anomalous Connection / Low and Slow Exfiltration to IP
· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Failed Connections
· Compromise / Large Number of Suspicious Successful Connections
AI Agents: Securing the Path from Intent to Action
The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently published guidance on managing the cyber risk of agentic AI. While the document is framed as interim advice as more formal guidance is developed, the framing reflects the current state of the industry: organizations are already deploying agents into production environments while standards, controls, and operating models for autonomous systems remain unsettled. Governance is evolving alongside adoption rather than preceding it, a reality which underscores the importance of robust controls.
The NCSC’s guidance recommends aligning controls to an agent's level of autonomy, assigning distinct identities, limiting permissions, constraining access to systems and data, monitoring activity, maintaining human oversight, and preserving the ability to intervene when necessary. Most of these recommendations will sound familiar to security teams. The challenge is not the novelty of the controls. It is the type of system those controls now need to govern.
The shift from model security to agent security
For several years, AI security discussions have focused heavily on models. Can a model be manipulated? Jailbroken? Trusted? Can it expose information it should not? Those questions remain important, but they capture only part of the problem. A model generating text is one thing. A system connected to identities, applications, tools, workflows, and business data is another.
The difference becomes clearer when comparing a chatbot that answers questions with an agent that can retrieve customer records, update tickets, invoke tools, trigger workflows, and interact with external systems. The underlying model may be identical. Its access is not. The security question begins to shift from what the model knows to what the system can do.
The same theme appears in the Five Eyes statement released earlier this year, describing AI as a force multiplier that is accelerating both offensive and defensive cyber operations. The NCSC guidance explores what that reality looks like when autonomous systems begin operating inside enterprise environments.
Securing AI agents in operation
The NCSC spends relatively little time debating model behavior and considerably more time discussing identity, permissions, monitoring, oversight, containment, and response. Agents are treated as participants within an environment rather than isolated pieces of technology.
That's broadly consistent with how we think about the problem at Darktrace.
An agent should not be treated as an extension of a user account. It develops its own behavioral patterns. It accesses systems, interacts with data, invokes tools, and moves across workflows in ways that can be observed independently. Understanding what an agent is permitted to do matters. Understanding how it actually behaves once deployed, and whether that behavior aligns with business intent, matters just as much.
Identity provides an obvious example. The NCSC recommends assigning distinct identities to agents rather than allowing them to disappear into surrounding human or service accounts. Most importantly, assigning agents distinct identities enables independent behavioral monitoring.
Development assumptions vs. real-world behavior
The same principle extends to monitoring. NCSC guidance places agent activity within normal security operations rather than treating it as a separate AI governance function. Many of the controls described are put in place before an agent begins operating. Sandboxing, credential design, approval workflows and human oversight all reflect judgments about how the system is expected to behave and what risks it is likely to create.
Actual use may challenge those assumptions. Access patterns change. Workflows expand. Systems begin interacting with resources they have never touched before. Processes that appeared reasonable during design behave differently in production. Human oversight requirements may turn out to be either excessive or inadequate once the system is operating at scale and operating within the context of unique business processes.
The Five Eyes statement points to a similar issue: organizations need confidence that controls continue to work as intended once systems are exposed to real users, data, tools and operational pressures. Often, the question is not whether an agent is technically allowed to perform an action, but whether its behavior remains consistent with the role it was intended to play.
Monitoring and governance of AI agents go hand-in-hand
This problem is exactly why monitoring and governance should be treated as part of the same process. Governance sets the initial parameters for deployment, while monitoring provides evidence about whether those parameters remain appropriate. That evidence should, in turn, inform changes to permissions, controls and oversight.
This matters increasingly as autonomous systems are integrated into business processes. The relevant risk is shaped not only by the model or agent itself, but by what it can access, what actions it can take, and how its behavior changes in practice.
Developing continuous oversight of AI agent behavior
The implication is clear: governance cannot end at deployment. Organizations need a way to understand how agents behave after deployment, test whether controls remain appropriate, and adjust them as conditions change. That requires visibility not just into technical activity, but into whether that activity makes sense in the context of the business process the agent is intended to support.
This is where business-centric behavioral security can become critical. Risk does not emerge from the model itself: it emerges from the actions an autonomous system takes within the enterprise and the downstream consequences of those actions.
An agent can operate exactly as intended and still create risk if it accesses sensitive information in an unexpected context, exercises permissions in ways that create unintended exposure, or influences business processes in ways that were not anticipated during design and review.
Traditional governance vs. behavioral security
Traditional governance frameworks provide assurance at a point in time. Behavioral security can provide ongoing visibility into how autonomous systems interact with the organization they are meant to serve. Rather than focusing exclusively on model performance or policy compliance, organizations need to understand whether an agent's behavior aligns with business intent, operational expectations, and acceptable risk tolerances as conditions change.
As enterprises move from isolated AI deployments to interconnected ecosystems of agents, visibility into behavior becomes as important as visibility into code. Governance determines what an autonomous system is permitted to do. Behavioral analytics helps determine what it is doing, what business outcomes it is producing, and whether those outcomes remain aligned with the organization's objectives.
